[Maxim Litvinov]

This was a huge issue -- it consumed both parties and was a major, major, major topic of discussion in 1963

Again - the primary election issue? No. Despite writing a paragraph of response you didn't even deal with the question at hand.

I'm just telling you that the will of the people is expressed through elections.

And expressed badly. As you well know - or at least should know - every person in a representative democracy is forced to vote for a candidate whose policies they don't 100% support. Therefore it should not surprise anyone to find out that although the government is promoting these ABM sites, the people, by about a 2-1 margin, oppose them. Therefore it follows that the government is not abiding by the will of the people on this issue.

[Steve]

Again - the primary election issue? No.

The election was fought on the issue. Diefenbaker ran all over the country bashing the Americans over it. George Grant wrote a hugely influential book about it. Did the Liberals try to change the channel on it? Sure. But Diefenbaker was all over the place, going on about it all the time. Election-defining issue -- what else were they talking about then?

The CBC mentions it here (also relevant to what Qatz wrote)
See here as well.

[/url]

[Maxim Litvinov]

Again- the primary election issue? No.

Even if it were though, it wouldn't really advance your point. We know the position of Poles on the issue of ABM sites and we know the results of the last election. What they clearly reflect when placed together is that the issue was not of primary importance - ie. the election result was not a plebiscite on ABMs.

Your position comes down to the idea that the only thing a 'democratic government' should have to do is gain power though and is plainly wrong as a result. If the people want A and B and reject C, then your duty once elected is not to push through A, B and C but to respond to the specific will of the people. Just because the government of the day *can* push through unpopular legislation does not mean it *should* and neither does it mean it's the *democratic thing*.

[sploop!]

Ah, so you want your country to be the war-zone of Russia and the United States. Polish nationalists are extremely idiotic it would seem.

Poland has a lot of experience of being the battleground for other people's wars. I can't see why the population of Poland would want this, at all.

I seem to remember something similar happening in the UK with Pershing. Lots of us didn't want them here, but our government did, and our sad democracy meant there was nothing any of us could do about it, despite the action breaching international treaties on nuclear proliferation. Democracy fails again.

[stalker]

Does anybody agree that the issue at hand isn't the state of Polish democracy, which in the end is quite irrelevant at a global level, but the fact that this deployment is likely toheighten the risk of accidental nuclear war, i.e., fail to make either NATO or Russia any safer?

[Attila The Nun]

This is wonderful news. Though I would be willing to sacrifice the ABM site to save the NATO base and preserve American reputation, which I view as more important. The excuse to protect Europe from Iranian missiles has always struck me as obviously false, since the positioning of these ABM sites seem so peculiar accomplish that task. Why not Turkey? Why not Greece? Or Bulgaria? These seem much better to protect against Iran. Rather, the sites chosen by Bush seem perfect to protect against Russian missiles.

A NATO base would be a preemptive measure against Russian influence in the country and I applaud the strengthening of NATO in such a way.

[Typhoon]

The installation of the ABM system in Poland is designed to circumvent that threat in the long term.

Even with an improvement in Iranian ballistics without a nuclear warhead the missiles remain a small issue and even with the warheads there would be little reason for them to strike at Europe.
What concerns me more that the missiles is the fact that they are American missiles on the site, if it was a European venture I would be much more at ease with the situation, the US base to me is an unessasary intrusion in Europe (and a largely pointless one).

Rather, the sites chosen by Bush seem perfect to protect against Russian missiles.

It was probably one of the reasons the site was chosen but the threat to the Russian arsenal is low, sites in Europe would be ineffective aginst missiles launched at the US and the ABM system in general would be unlikely to be able to defend against a complete nuclear strike.
The article while interesting but many of the problems it talks about are overstated, being remedied or lack detail. For example Russian bombers may be currently located in a few sites but the threat of attack at the moment is low, a drop in relations and these could easily be dispersed and put on high alert.

[stalker]

It was probably one of the reasons the site was chosen but the threat to the Russian arsenal is low, sites in Europe would be ineffective aginst missiles launched at the US and the ABM system in general would be unlikely to be able to defend against a complete nuclear strike.

What if there were just a dozen or so Russian missiles left in the aftermath of a US first strike? Then these sites will be worth their weight in gold.

[Quercus Robur]

you'd think Israel needed anti-missiles more than Poland to defend against Iranian long range missiles.

[sploop!]

this deployment is likely toheighten the risk of accidental nuclear war, i.e., fail to make either NATO or Russia any safer?

I agree 100%, stalker. I'd go the extra step though - it makes deliberate nuclear war more likely because the deployment of this sort of equipment suggets that someone thinks a nuclear strike can be defended against, and that a nuclear war is winnable.

[Typhoon]

What if there were just a dozen or so Russian missiles left in the aftermath of a US first strike? Then these sites will be worth their weight in gold.

Well not the sites in Europe but the ones in the US then yes, the ones in Europe are ill placed to intercept Russian missiles firing over the arctic to the US. However a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia would be unlkely to succeed without being detected and with the new defensive and offensive platforms on the way it gets even less unlikely, if anyone wanted such a stike then they are at the wrong time, ABM may now be avaliable but the Russian armed forces are now back on the tracks.

Though I do agree that this deployment makes nuclear war more likely as sloop has said.

[SpiderMonkey]

Got to love how the entire world isn't even pausing on the way to hell. This move will only serve to antagonise Russia and ultimately leave to confrontation.

[Attila The Nun]

It was probably one of the reasons the site was chosen but the threat to the Russian arsenal is low, sites in Europe would be ineffective aginst missiles launched at the US and the ABM system in general would be unlikely to be able to defend against a complete nuclear strike.
The article while interesting but many of the problems it talks about are overstated, being remedied or lack detail. For example Russian bombers may be currently located in a few sites but the threat of attack at the moment is low, a drop in relations and these could easily be dispersed and put on high alert.

Well, ABM sites in the Cold War also could not have protected against full nuclear strike but were quite popular. Even a limited protection was still desired then and would still be desired, especially considering Russia's decaying capacity to launch full nuclear strikes. Protecting European allies is also desirable and seems less hostile than building ABM sites on the US.

Also, we do not know if this is the full extent of the ABM idea. I would not be surprused if this was just a preview of even grander designs by policymakers in the US designed to be slowly put into place to coincide with Russian aggression.

[Typhoon]

Well, ABM sites in the Cold War also could not have protected against full nuclear strike but were quite popular. Even a limited protection was still desired then and would still be desired, especially considering Russia's decaying capacity to launch full nuclear strikes. Protecting European allies is also desirable and seems less hostile than building ABM sites on the US.

Also, we do not know if this is the full extent of the ABM idea. I would not be surprused if this was just a preview of even grander designs by policymakers in the US designed to be slowly put into place to coincide with Russian aggression.

Terminal ABM interceptors were deployed in limited numbers during the cold war, the Moscow ABM system being a survivor from that period. The problem was the cost to provide nationwide coverage and the enemy could just increase the number of warheads to saturate the target, the MIRV.

Todays BMD exists in three phases, traditional terminal interception, boost phase and mid course interception. Boost phase is only effective if you are close to the target, so divercity of launch platforms (SLBM, static and mobile ICBM) and launch areas should provide portection. Terminal interceptors can be saturated by MIRV/decoys or an increase in missiles on target. Finally mid course avoidance can be accomplished by saturation, using a staggered ballistic profile, or just dont have a ballistic profile at all! Not to mention the other aspects of an arsenal that ABM does not even cover.

Russia has demonstrated all of these capabilities as well as a desire to modernise and suppliment its arsenal, so decaying is not really the best term to use today. Also this is definately not a case of Russian agression but a case of US agression, Russia in my opinion has a more mature way of handelling the nuclear issue, a proven way of ensuring safety, that of deterrent. Russian agression has always been as a responce to the actions of the west.

Placing ABM in Europe will only roll back all of the advances we made in limiting the use and number of nuclear weapons in the past as Russia or the US is forced to develop or re-deploy nuclear defences. Where we should have been is a continued dedication to assured deterrance but with a reduced arsenal. There is sope for an ABM system but it was poorly implimented and will now waste billions trying to do something that it will be unable to achieve to a satifactory level while fostering a new age of nuclear weapon development.

Congratuations America!

[Beren]

Yeah that's right Max, damn that Polish govt. for wanting to safeguard the lives of their citizens by hosting bases on their own soil.

Is the security of Poland so important to you from the U.S. of A. indeed? If something will ever be attacked in Europe, it will be the American radar-station and the anti-missile-rocket system in the Czech Republic and Poland. I'm glad none of them will be installed in Hungary. The U.S. of A. defends Europe the most efficiently, when it doesn't tease with Russia or Iran unnecessarily.

[Shade2]

Is the security of Poland so important to you from the U.S. of A. indeed? If something will ever be attacked in Europe, it will be the American radar-station and the anti-missile-rocket system in the Czech Republic and Poland. I'm glad none of them will be installed in Hungary. The U.S. of A. defends Europe the most efficiently, when it doesn't tease with Russia or Iran unnecessarily.

What a foolish statement. By that logic Poland should disarm, and apply to become a Russian province, while eradicating its own culture in order not to 'tease' Russia.

Polish people, like all people, vote on many many issues in an election.

This wasn't an issue in elections. Poles are not interested in that. It only comes in polls, otherwise it isn't a political issue in Poland.

As we've found, the government hasn't listened to the will of the people on the issue. There are two responses to this:
[1] The will of the people doesn't really matter that much/if they hated it they'd topple the government/well, we get out ABM sites, so ner ner...
[2] The will of the people is an important part of democracy. It's regrettable the government is ignoring it.

You forgot
[3] The issue isn't important to people, when asked they voice their opinion, but they don't feel it is important to become active.

Ah, so you want your country to be the war-zone of Russia and the United States.

What a rapist like argument-"you will get hurt if you resist". Poland is defending itself against Russian imperialism, to argue that by doing so it will be hurt by Russian agression, so it should willingly become Russian gulag once more seems like an argument from a rapist claiming that the victim would be all right if not for his resistance.

Polish nationalists are extremely idiotic it would seem.

Wanna be rapists seem more idiotic by arguing "You won't be hurt if you stop resisting the rape".

[MatthewJ]

When it doesn't tease with Russia or Iran unnecessarily.

You have things upside down like most people. The only thing that spurs Russia on is Western weakness and wishful thinking. By not taking a hard line with them and publicly shouting down their ridiculous accusations and war mongering rhetoric we only empower the brute to lie and scheme even more. We have the ability to stop their propaganda about this limited missile shield tomorrow if only we weren’t so concerned about upsetting our new ally and "strategic partner".

[Piano Red]

Even with an improvement in Iranian ballistics without a nuclear warhead the missiles remain a small issue and even with the warheads there would be little reason for them to strike at Europe.

The Iranians could always unshelf their development program you know, if they already don't plan to do so in the near future.

What concerns me more that the missiles is the fact that they are American missiles on the site, if it was a European venture I would be much more at ease with the situation, the US base to me is an unessasary intrusion in Europe (and a largely pointless one).

How? There's been an American presence in Europe for decades now, and it's not as though the US lacks the consent of such countries where it has military assets stationed.

It was probably one of the reasons the site was chosen but the threat to the Russian arsenal is low, sites in Europe would be ineffective aginst missiles launched at the US and the ABM system in general would be unlikely to be able to defend against a complete nuclear strike.

No it wasn't. If it were than the US would be installing far more than just 10 GBIs. The sites in Poland and Czech Republic would be designed to protect Europe, not the US.

What if there were just a dozen or so Russian missiles left in the aftermath of a US first strike? Then these sites will be worth their weight in gold.

Impossible.

you'd think Israel needed anti-missiles more than Poland to defend against Iranian long range missiles.

Israel is working on their own ABM program in a joint effort with the US.

[Shade2]

if it was a European venture I would be much more at ease with the situation, the US base to me is an unessasary intrusion in Europe (and a largely pointless one).

Huh ? Europe is just a continent with many diverse countries like France, Moldavia, Norway, Switzerland, Poland, Germany.
What is wrong with two countries from two continents agreeing to military defence cooperation. Are you speaking for geological rock formations beneath soil of Europe ? Are they somehow concerned about American continents incursion of granite ?

[Typhoon]

Well thats a lot of ifs in the case of a Iranian warhead and I dont think the downsides of the US interceptors in Poland are justified against the threat (especially for poland). True the US already has a presance in Europe and has done so for a long time, still doesnt mean that I like it or that I think its nessasary. The Russians dont see the treat as it is now but rather what it could be in the future as perhaps US planners also see the situation.

By that logic Poland should disarm, and apply to become a Russian province, while eradicating its own culture in order not to 'tease' Russia.

LOL cold war hangover there, oh oh oh watch out your not thinking about the Germans to the west, the fourth reich is coming!